Annotated+Bibs

Linda Jackson SCKWP Summer 2007 Annotated Bibliography

In this article, Burk goes right to the heart of teaching poetry, the teacher must be a guide. One who doesn’t help too much, but is there in time of dire need. He defines poetry as ‘terrain whose boundaries are always in dispute’. Even poets do not define poetry the same. Wordsworth thought it was an ‘outpouring of strong emotion’, while Frost described it as a ‘stay against confusion’. So helping students explore the geography of poetry, unknown territory, is essential.
 * Burk, D. (March, 1992). Teaching the terrain of poetry. //English Journal, 26-31.//**

Burk found three things that will not work in teaching students about writing poetry: 1. Lectures and Lists of Terms-sonnets, pentameter, simile, metaphor, etc. 2. Prompts, Patterns, and Recipes - formulas like C (comparison) + C + WD (wild dream) + E (emotion) = P (poem) 3. The Survival Poetry Assignment-just come up to the task

He discusses four things poets do that become the rules for his students. 1. Poets make decisions about rhyme. 2. Poets arrange their words on the page to suit their own purposes. 3. Poets say things in ways they have never been said before. 4. Poets revise. These four guideposts serve to make the student own the process and the final product is authentic to their experience-their own map through the terrain. Burk shows examples of student work exemplifying the best of each of the four rules.

Chapter 4 describes poet laureate of the United States and Harvard Professor, Robert Pinsky’s theoretical foundation of the Favorite Poem Project: the principles of autonomy and physicality. Autonomy refers to the reader being allowed to pick a poem that speaks to them so there is ownership. Physicality refers to the poem being read aloud to hear and feel the rhythm, meter, and word sound since poetry is written for the human voice. Then the reader will have made a true connection with the poem. In the Favorite Poem Project Pinsky initiated a one year call for anyone interested to submit a favorite poem. During this time, 18,000 Americans of all ages and in every state submitted a favorite poem. These were then turned into four anthologies, a video, and a website.
 * Indrisano, R., & Bryson, J.H., & Jones, M. (2005) Writing and Poetry in the Elementary Grades. In Indrisano, R., & Paratore, J.R., (Eds). //Learning to write,//**
 * //writing to learn: Theory and research in practice. (pp. 57-69).// Newark, DE: International Reading Association.**

The chapter goes on to describe how two teachers applied his principles at their school with students and parents. The initial goal was to give the students a chance to choose poems for themselves, to perform them orally, and to respond in written form about the poems. The activities included: personal anthology journal, practice and oral reading of poems, and sharing of one poem from their anthology once a week. Discussion of the poems became more qualitative and articulate. The home was included with a poem a week as part of homework for the parent and child to discuss and illustrate or respond to in their native language.

This chapter is about becoming interested and comfortable with poetry; having it as part of life for the student, and responding in written and oral form. Poetry was used to illustrate metaphor, simile, alliteration, and repetition long before the students were encouraged to write poetry.

Tremmel begins this article with the difficulty of the teaching of writing poetry in secondary school partially due to the lack of solid research that shows a connection to academic achievement. Language arts researchers such as William McFinley and Robert Tierney (1989) had a hard time making poetry and the writing of poetry conform to the structure and protocol of research, so poetry was not included in any of their research into the connections of language and learning. He states that ‘the writing of poetry and the kind of learning and knowledge associated with poetry are widely understood to stand outside the main province of language arts studies’ (p. 19).
 * Tremmel, R. (Summer, 1992). Making the return move: Secondary students thinking poetically and writing poetry. //Journal of Aesthetic Education,// Vol. 26, No. 2, 17-30.**

The next section of the article discusses the traditional Piagetian theory of childhood and adolescent development as a linear progression from concrete to formal operations, growing in abstractive and objective skills. Writing is considered the most formal and representational form of thought with analytical thought and linear construction being the highest concern. The outcome will always be away from the poetic form. Howard Gardner(1983) and Alice Brand (1989) focus on the idea that Piaget’s developmental model is a narrow model; that of the young scientist. If taken in that context, it is fine.

Tremmel uses the work of Susanne Langer (1942, 1953) to discuss language as a whole range of abilities that are interrelated. Langer has two terms to discuss ‘representational symbolism’ or the act of writing. The first is ‘discursive’ which refers to the linear and analytical style we know as academic writing. The second is ‘presentational’ which refers to the emotive, visual, and auditory symbolism we find in art, music and poetry. They are distinct and different but the presentational form is central to the human experience and happens prior to and at the foundation of the discursive form. They are intertwined and must be explored together, not apart. Both are intrinsic to thought and language. Another source, Arthur Applebee (1978), is used to point out that poetic processes move away from the Piagetian model of analysis and objectivity toward subjectivity. Only when both are explored is there a whole; a divide is bridged and connected.

The article is concluded with the idea that as teachers we need to help students think through and use language for the full range of the human experience. Poetry study and writing is part of this because it helps us ‘face what we cannot face, know what we cannot know, and say what we have no idea how to say’ (p. 29).

This chapter discusses new imaging techniques of the human brain that show music, which include the rhythm and rhyme, actually activate areas of the brain in both hemispheres. Music experiences activate cognitive, visual, auditory, affective and motor systems. Language set to rhyme and rhythm enhances recall and retention. While this chapter does not single poetry out from music it does indicate that the brain uses many different areas to think about poetry. The finding that the brain really does activate many parts of the brain may help support further research into teaching poetry and poetry writing.
 * Wolfe, P. (2001). Music (Rhyme and Rhythm) Hath Many Charms. In //Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice.// Alexandria,VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp.160-168).**

Integrating the Curriculum: Where can we fit Writing in? Renee Kohlhagen

Englert, Carol S., Raphael, Taffy E., Anderson, Linda M., Anthony, Helene M., & Stevens, Dannelle D. (1991). Making Strategies and Self-Talk Visible: Writing Instruction in Regular and Special Education Classrooms. //American Educational Research Journal//, //Vol. 28, No 2//, Retrieved July 16, 2007,from [|http://www.jstor.org.] This article explains how developing a knowledge of text structures and implementing certain instructional strategies will improve expository writing. This includes using dialogue. Listening to ones own writing allows you to use talking as a natural editing tool. Instructional scaffolding that bridges the gap between what students do and what the teacher wants through the writing process of prewriting, drafting, editing and publishing. It also discusses collaborating with peers. Peers monitor and provide feedback and together they practice their problem solving skills. Knowing their text structures and using these strategies will help both regular and special education students experience success.

Faery, Rebecca B. (1985).Writing for Teachers. //English Journal//. 80-82. This article provides a list of 18 books and a brief summary of the content of each one. These books are educational guides into the pedagogy of writing. They answer questions such as; Why is it important that students write? What should writing be like in school? And, Who should teach it?

Silcock, Peter (1992).Primary School Teachers-Time and the National Curriculum: Managing the Impossible. //British Journal of Educational Studies//. //Vol. 40, No.2//, 163-173. This article discusses how a teacher must devote their time. This includes preparation time, time devoted to parents and school organizations, developing lessons and administering assessments. Although I was looking for solutions, it only presented what I feel are the problems of a lack of resources and time. Smith, Richard J., & Hansen, Lee H. (1976). Integrating Reading and Writing: Effects on Children's Attitudes. //The Elementary School Journal//, //Vol. 76 No. 4//, Retrieved July 17, 2007, from [|http://www.jstor.org.]

This article addressed how students attitudes towards writing and reading were affected by combining the two curriculums. Students were assigned to read a level appropriate passage and then divide into three groups. 1) a group that had no writing prompt 2) a group that had a teacher created writing prompt related to the text 3) a group that could have a self selected writing prompt related to the text. Attitudes towards reading and writing were also collected and analyzed. Results showed that girls did better on teacher directed writing prompts and boys did better on self selected writing prompts. The study concluded that writing actually made their attitudes toward reading decrease. They enjoyed the reading material more when they were not expected to write over it.

Walmsley, AuthorSean A., & Walp, Trudy P. (1990). Integrating Literature and Composing into the Language Arts Curriculum: Philosophy and Practice. //The Elementary School Journal//. //Vol. 90, No.3//, 251-274.

Redefining the role of literature and composing writing in the elementary classroom. This article addressed combing writing and editing together instead of pulling them apart, and combining literature with general reading skills. It also included content on how both writing and literature should be applied in history, geography, and science. Examining why reading and writing components should be balanced and taught in a sequential order that is agreed upon across grade levels.

Annotated Bibliography Lisa Dobbs July 18, 2007

In the effort to gain additional strategies to improve my teaching, I selected to research strategies for struggling middle school writers. I will continue working with the inclusion model in a regular classroom and the research has brought additional insight and strategies that I will be able to apply to all my classroom settings.

Applebee, Arthur N. (2002).Engaging students in the disciplines of english: what are effective schools doing?. //The English Journal//. //91//, 30-36. Applebee provides six ways to encourage improvement among students’ learning literacy: engaging students in higher-order talk and writing about the disciplines of English; ensure the cohesiveness of curriculum and instruction; use diverse perspectives to deepen discussion and enhance learning; align curriculum with assessment; scaffold skills and strategies needed for new and difficult tasks; and provide special help to struggling readers and writers. It is valuable to know that classrooms rich in literacy will produce positive outcomes. With the inclusion model on the upward trend, all students will benefit from scaffolding new and difficult tasks to assure academic success.

Broz, William J. (1988).Ten reasons to write for your students. //The English Journal//. //77//, 73-76. As the title indicates, Broz presents ten fabulous reasons why we as educators should write to our students. It is recommended to collect these so that they can be used as a valuable resource at a short notice. The ten reasons are: 1) your students are a captive audience; 2) write to communicate with yours students; 3) write to let them get to know you; 4) write the assignments you give your students to determine credibility and assure the students comprehend what outcomes are expected; 5) write as a clarification of the assignment; 6) to make you become a better writer; 7) sharing your written work by reading models peer editing for your students; 8) sharing personal pieces that does not relate to school; 9) write to them as they will demonstrate an emotional connection and will possibly benefit from your personal experiences; and lastly, 10) write about your students to be published for their viewing. Modeling these in our every day classroom creates a “willingness to write” epidemic, encouraging even the struggling writers to want to participate.

Collins, Kathleen M., & Collins, James L. (1996). Strategic instructions for struggling writers. //The English Journal//. //85//, 54-61. Collins & Collins presents strategic writing strategies that depend on two basic types of knowledge: declarative knowledge, which is facts and things; procedural knowledge, which involves strategies of obtaining goals. The strategic writing approach is set up in four scaffolding steps: identifying a strategy worth teaching; introducing the strategy by modeling it; helping students as they apply the strategy to their writing with teacher guidance; and then step four is helping students strive toward independent mastery with repeated practice. It identifies a strategy of having the students divide their paper in half; writing the highlights of an article on the left column and responding in their own words on the right directly across each specified highlight. This site also presents the theory that students identified as learning disabled may respond more efficiently to non- verbal channels versus verbal ones. Graphic mapping provides a visual connectedness with the text. This suggestion of strategies could be useful integrated across the curriculum and all levels of education.

Schumaker, Jean B., & Deshler, Donald D. (2003). Can students with ld become competent writers?. //Learning Disability Quarterly//. //26//, 129-141. All students young and old can become competent writers when provided strategies and the opportunity to practice writing performance. We have discovered through experience and reinforced by Schumaker’s article that the writing process cannot be taught. Schumaker suggests that teachers use a variety of strategies that he has provided to produce positive improvements in the students’ performance. In addition, ample teacher feedback (conferencing) needs to exist to provide encouragement and support. It is similar to learning to ride a bike. Some students will require extensive practice and others will have the task acquired quickly and attempt new adventures.

Stetson, Maura (1996).Freedom of voice. //The English Journal//. //85//, 74-78. Essentially the journal article written by Stetson has developed seven guidelines (not a recipe) to nurture voice in the writing process. Voice can be encouraged by posting the students work or allowing a struggling student to identify an example of voice in another writing sample and posting it so they feel that they contributed. She recommends that we allow the students to write outside the classroom environment. Stetson reinforces that writing is an expression of self, allowing the writer to communicate if we as teachers do not silence their words. As a teacher I have appreciated the strategies such as these that develop the Writing process, some students need baby steps and others gain enough confidence that they move forward with leaps and bounds.

Annotated Bibliography By Alexa Harrelson

I chose to study writing and the ESL student. I will be having quite a few ESL students next year and am considering getting my ESL Endorsement.

Chan, Michele M. (1988).Research in the Classroom: What We Already Know about Teaching ESL Writers. //The English Journal//. //77//, 84-85. Chan suggests that ESL learners will do just as well that the other learners in the writing classroom. Many ESL students are aware of the various compositional techniques. They should be encouraged to write about what interests them. They can start very early in the process of learning to write in English. They do not need to wait until they have become fluent.

Harris, Muriel, & Silva, Tony (1993). Tutoring ESL Students: Issues and Options. //College Composition and Communication//. //44//, 525-537. Harris and Silva say that ESL students need tutoring in their writing because they have special needs that will have to be address in a one-on-one setting. Peer tutor training is helpful because at first there are many items that need to be addressed. It is more beneficial to tackle one area at a time. Cultural differences are helpful to know before hand but not all students of any one first language will have any specific anomaly. English oral proficiency versus English writing ability will determine what kind of tutoring is most beneficial. Rhetorical matters should be addressed before linguistic ones although the student may not like it. ESL students will have a written accent that may leave the prose with some minor problems in their writing. As a teacher, we should see this as voice and not punish the student for it. Correct understanding of the content needs to be the first priority. The student will not have the intuitive ability that a Native English Speaking (NES) person does so they rely upon rules that may not apply but many of them should be taught. How else will the learner know what to do?

Jones, Nathan B. (1998).Comments of Tony Silva’s “On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers”: A Defense of Using Themes and Topics to Teach ESL/EFL Writing. //TESOL Quarterly//. //32//, 338-342. Read the Tony Silva article listed below first. Jones does not agree with Silva on what she thinks of as “appropriate instruction” Jones thinks that specific writing topics for individual papers can enhance the teaching and learning of the ESL student. He believes that by having the whole class work on a subject, that an ESL student will have more resources in the classroom to get help because all of the students will be working on the vocabulary and the same information. Jones says that this motivates students to improve their writing because they are trying to prove a point to another student. Teachers should pick subjects that will interest their students. An example is to write a family oral history. This would include a built in audience. Jones also believes that assigned topics are a more realistic approach to teach students about coping with the real world of necessary writing. Jones believes that by working as a class doing the research helps to prevent plagiarism because they are supported throughout the writing process. Jones reminds the reader at the end of the paper that he does not question Silva’s teaching ability but that we should all be respectful of the other teachers and not call their techniques of teaching writing inappropriate.

Silva, Tony (1997).On the Ethical Treatment of ESL Writers. //TESOL Quarterly//. //31//, 359-363. ESL students are here for different reasons and they need to be understood. Some are international students who will return home. Some are immigrants who will stay and some are bilinguals who have been here for some time. ESL students require a proper setting for learning where they can have more time to write and think. They may not have the needed background for the questions. Silva thinks that writing should only be about writing and that the students should pick the topics to write about. This should not be a forum for teaching another subject. Silva says that evaluation needs to be aware of the slow and gradual process of writing and that it is not realistic to expect the same things as the Native English Speaker (NES) would accomplish.

Young, Martha W. (1996).English (as a Second) Language Arts Teachers: The Key to Mainstreaming ESL Student Success. //The English Journal//. //85//, 17-24. “Strategies, resources, and advice for a monolingual English teacher who has ESL students.” (Young 1996)Young believes that teachers must have training if ESL mainstreaming is to be the norm. Teachers need support systems that could include reading specialists, school librarians, foreign language teachers, foreign language learners, experienced teachers of ESL students, school classroom volunteers, and other native speaking students. Strategies and techniques that work for oral language development as well as writing could be shared. Some are listed in the article.

Mary Dohl Summer 2007 Annotated Bibliography

//Responding to Student Writing//

Bardine, B. A., Bardine, M. S., & Deegan, E. F. (2000). Beyond the red pen: Clarifying our role in the response process. //The English Journal//. //90//, 94-101. Bardine, Bardine, and Deegan conducted a study in the classrooms of two writing teachers. They researched to see how students responded to the comments that were written on their papers. They found that students spent minimum time reading the comments, could not understand some of them, and viewed them either as criticism or as a way to get a better grade. Some improvements the teachers planned to make included more conferencing, the use of portfolios, and taking the emphasis away from the grade. I have decided that I write too many comments. I will work on using more student-friendly forms of response to be sure I am giving the students the help that they need.

Crone-Blevins, D. E. (2002).The art of response. //The English Journal//. //91//, 93-98. Crone-Blevins called responding to writing “tricky business.” There is tension in teachers between the desire to respond effectively and honestly while also giving support to developing writers. Research shows that teachers don’t agree on the types of responses that are most effective. Teachers they studied found it helpful to approach the students’ work as a concerned reader who wants to help the writer by asking questions rather than trying to direct them through improvements. Another saw the teacher role as mentor rather than a judge. She provided many opportunities for students to write without a grade at stake. This article also recommends a conference approach and the need to provide safe zones where students can write and receive encouragement.

Monroe, B. (2002).Feedback: Where it's at is where it's at. //The English Journal//. //92//, 102-104. Monroe declared that written comments in the old long-hand form are too time consuming. She advocated relocating teacher feedback from a private piece of paper to the public forums of class discussion and e-mail. Because writing assignments are generally assigned to the entire class, the feedback can be delivered in a public manner. The teacher could use sets of papers and make formative comments for the entire class. If individual conferencing were to be used, she favored the impromptu form that an instructor uses while monitoring the class. This form of response seems workable and beneficial.

Monroe, B. (2003).How e-mail can give you back your life. //The English Journal//. //92//, 116-118. Monroe contends that e-mail and oral feedback are more effective than writing comments on papers. The tool used for whole class participation was Listserve. She sees the one-on-one teacher-student relationship as debilitating and supports summative group evaluation instead. She states that literate practices develop best in communities since we learn to speak and write by imitation and practice. Class Blogmeister would be the vehicle to use for this form of response.

Wagner, D., Close, E., & Ramsy, K. D. (2001). Middle talk: a safe harbor: Writing groups in the middle school classroom. //The English Journal//. //90//, 127-133. Close and Ramsey co-edited an article that featured Darla Wagner’s middle school writing class. Wagner took part in the NE Ohio Writing Project and used it as a model to set up peer writing response groups. Guidelines were established. The list includes the following: 1. Listen to the author read his or her piece twice. 2. Consider content first. 3. Begin suggestions with “The piece…” or “The poem…” rather than “You.” 4. Be specific in feedback to the author. 5. Be supportive and positive when responding to someone’s work. Wagner also provided rubrics and demonstrated their use with student writing samples. Students in Wagner’s class developed a sketchbook portfolio to keep samples of their work. I have some concerns about students taking peer groups seriously in 6th grade. The guidelines her class created would help set the focus the discussion. With the rules so well-defined, it would help the students work within a framework.

Wendy Graber South Central Kansas Writing Project Summer 2007 Annotated Bibliography

G. Conrad urges the teachers of writing to remember that students approach the writing processes in a variety of ways according to what works best for them. As is true that not everyone writes with the same fluency or tone as the next person, it is also true that each writer has his or her own unique way of revising their works in progress. He cautions that teachers should keep this in mind when assigning revision tasks and pay more attention to the final product than rather how the student got there.
 * Conrad, G. (2000). “Speaking My Mind”. //The// //English Journal//. Vol. 90,**
 * No. 1, 19-20**.

The research discussed in this essay focuses on two specific questions regarding the revision of student writing: 1) What characteristics of teacher commentary appear to influence student revision? and 2) Do revisions influenced by teacher feedback lead to substantive and effective changes in students’ papers? Teacher comments researched were positive comments, comments about grammar and mechanics, and other general comments regarding content. Results of the study are conflicting: Students pay a great deal of attention to teacher feedback, and students sometimes ignore it altogether. No surprise there. Ferris ends the essay by offering a few suggestions to making teacher commentary more effective and meaningful to the student so as to elicit substantial positive revisions.
 * Ferris, Dana R. (Summer 1997). "The Influence of Teacher Commentary on**
 * Student Revision". //TESOL Quarterly//. Vol. 31, No. 2, 315-339.**

This essay examines the views of revision and how its role in the writing process has changed drastically over the last two decades. Much of the article discusses the historical trends in revision practices and perspectives, and where research studies in the topic need to go from here. Fitzgerald argues that the most important factor in the long-range significance of revision research will be tied to the researcher’s ability to raise questions about how revision helps people to learn, primarily because very little is known today about how or when revision aids in the learning process.
 * Fitzgerald, Jill (Winter 1987). "Research on Revision in Writing". //Review of//**
 * //Educational Research//****. Vol. 57, No. 4, 481-50.**

Flanigan and Menendez examine the reasons behind most students’ disinclination to revise and offer steps to help teach a revision process rather than making it a daunting chore. The authors provide specific steps for revising a narrative piece and an interview by using a 5-fold process of 1) discovery; 2) describe; 3) analyze; 4) evaluate; and 5) recommend.
 * Flanigan, Michael C., & Menendez, Diane S. (1980). “Perception and**
 * Change: Teaching Revision.” //College English//. Vol. //42//, No. 3, 256-**
 * 266.**

These authors argue that revision is the most important part of the writing process, and students need to learn to be good revisers. Revision is “a much more substantial process than tinkering with a piece of writing,” and because of this, students need to be guided more in the revision process than in the actual beginning stages of an essay. This is also the area where teachers can influence the quality of a student’s writing most directly, and must be approached with tact. Kirby and Liner go into detail about the differences between //editing, proofreading,// and //revising//, and give examples in identifying the stages as students proceed forward. They also argue that two things are essential before revision can be successful: 1) the student must be fluent in that mode of writing in which they are working; and 2) to sustain interest in revision, the writing needs to be important to the student. Therein lies the challenge for all writing instructors with all ages of students, although these authors make the task seem like a piece of cake.
 * Kirby, Dan R., & Liner, Tom (1980). “Revision: Yes, They Do It (Yes,**
 * You Can Teach It)”. //The// //English Journal//. Vol. 69, No. 3, 41-45.**

Gloria Neubert and Sally McNelis investigate the reasons why peer- revision has been an unsuccessful tool in the revision process and offer techniques to facilitate peer-revision and make it a worth-while technique. One technique is to focus peer responses using PQP (praise, question, polish), then by generating specific responses through total class activities, small group activities, individual work, and follow up
 * Neubert, Gloria A., & McNelis, Sally J. (1990). "Peer Response: Teaching**
 * Specific Revision Suggestions". //The English Journal//. Vol. 79,**
 * No. 5, 52-56.**

Mimi Swartz believes that revision is “a complex creative act that everyone must master if… one wants to write really well,” but that revision practices are not predictable and, as of yet, we have not guidelines for individual success. This essay lays down a foundation on which to develop these necessary guidelines through a series of nine revision profiles. Two profiles are language regeneration profiles, four are structural reformulation profiles, and three are content reassessment profiles, all of which Schwartz identifies in detail. By understanding writer profiles, writer, teacher, and research are empowered to discuss individual revision patterns. The profiles will also help teachers to individualize their oral and written comments, and will reinforce a pedagogical framework “that considers revision not as an isolated skill but instead as a complex creative act.
 * Schwartz, Mimi (1983). “Revision Profiles: Patterns & Implications”.**
 * //College English//. Vol. 45, No. 6, 549-558.**

In this Essay, Baird Shuman makes distinctions between the terminology and what is considered to be revision and that of rewriting. He emphasizes how the majority of English teachers model and encourage the //rewriting// as opposed to the //revision//, and offers some suggestions to better facilitate the latter. Two major techniques are discussed, revision “teams” and change in audience, both of which are student-centered revision activities rather than teacher directed. He ends the essay by stating that the teacher who avoids revision practices has not done an adequate job of teaching the writing process at all.
 * Shuman, R. Baird (1975). “What About Revision?”. //The// //English Journal//.**
 * Vol. 64, No. 9, 41-43**.